Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
majority leader harry reid had to switch his vote to know to bring the vote back up again after the senate comes back from recess. you have a lot of republican senators who said as recently as last week that they did not want to see the choice filibuster. even if they wanted to vote no, he at least deserved an uptown vote to be approved. there was no precedent -- precedent to filibuster president's choice like this. the republicans decided they wanted to try to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on the issues like the terrorist attack on benghazi in september. they submitted to passing hagel when they come back. it way you're looking at, is delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed as defense secretary. he is just going to get to wait 11 days. to me, it seems like you should confirm him, because you're going to confirm him anyway. it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to do. harry reid set a new vote for tuesday, in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: they say they would like answers again from t
or whatever. they laid this on harry reid and that's how it all got started. he is -- so i says obama is lying basically is what he is saying, you know. he is dead wrong. the sequester did not start with jack lew. it are started back in 1985 with graham-rudman. >> that's when they first had the sequester for that round of budget cuts. so it's an idea that's been around. yes, as jay carney has pointed out, if there was a meeting with the white house, would the republicans remember who were holding up refuses to do anything about raising the debt ceiling because they said we have to have a lodge-term deficit reduction plan: the president said we will appoint this committee. >> i am having bad flashbacks >> bill: we were this and they said how do we know the super committee is going to do its job and jack lew said i remember something that they did 25 years ago or whatever called a sequester. the republicans said we like that idea. we will hold this giant rock above people's heads that will fall on their heads if they don't do hair job. the republicans e
president. we met with john boehner and his leadership team. we met with harry reid and his leadership team. our message was we think it is very important that governors have a seat at the table. we are partners. we wanted to make sure there were a few principles we could lay out. one is to the extent money is taken off of federal spending but he shifted to state spending, that does not accomplished much for our constituents. my view is that that they understood. they have reached out to us. we are pleased with the outrage. the main bipartisan message to us is that governors should continue to have a seat at the table. we know cuts are coming. we do not want to suffer disproportionately. we want input. >> does sequestration protect the states any more than other alternatives? >> look. if you take a look at it and when you say "states," it is important that we can talk about the impact. you're talking about the impact on the people we serve. the state of vehicles on of service. it covers everything from substance abuse treatment to head start to work force training. one of the frustrations f
john boehner talking to the president or mitch mcconnell talking to the vice president or harry reid, there's a few people at the top trying to make these decisions thinking we should all fall. there's little reach the bottom to find out where we are coming from and it's based on seniority. that hasn't worked well. we haven't been able to fix much with that type of attitude so i know when we reach out and have 25, 30 of us and we are reaching across the aisle malae -- i will give you a perfect example. we had a problem with revenue and people said we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. we have people on the other side saying we don't spending problem, we have a revenue problem. they are both right and they are both wrong. how do we get people on the other side if a republican says i don't want any more revenue but they said it might not be that it's just i don't like the way that you spend the money and the democrats say okay. can we come to an agreement? if we vote to have revenue and also you are asking me as a democrat if we have new revenue can you spend it
rally instead of traveling a mile and a half and sitting down to harry reid and coming up with a plan to, to replace these cuts with smarter reforms and smarter approaches. over the last 10 months, the republicans have been working and we have passed two bills to replace these cuts. we need the president to stop campaigning for higher taxes and come back to washington d.c. and the lead. dodge the president is more interested in holding a campaign rally and urging the senate democrats to actually pass the plan. we know there are smarter ways to cut spending and continued to grow our economy. that is why republicans have acted to replace the sequester with what we would argue are smarter cuts. the president says we have to have another tax increase to avoid the sequestered. you got your tax increase. it is time to cut spending in washington. instead of using our military men and women as campaign props, begin to address our problems. the house has acted twice and we should not have to act a third time before the senate begins to do their work. >> we heard the president said last week that
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5